Nikon vs Sigma (Page 2): As long as you are still looking, and will be in a camera store soon, check out the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro. You may be surprised. In the meantime, here's a...

Gatorcoach Loc: New Jersey

As long as you are still looking, and will be in a camera store soon, check out the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro. You may be surprised. In the meantime, here's a review.
https://www.colesclassroom.com/tokina-100-mm-macro-lens-review-amazing-images-budget-price/

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I favor lenses made by the camera manufacturer. I will say that the Nikon 105 f2.8 Macro is your lens and it was made to fit Nikon bodies without compromise.
You will gain with the new lens a longer working distance. Today optics regardless of manufacturer are excellent.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Larry J wrote:

I am currently using a Nikon 500D (love it). My question has several parts and I will try to be as concise as possible. Have been using a Nikon 85mm 1:3.5 for Macro shots. I am considering going to either a Nikon
105mm 2.8 or a Sigma 105mm 2.8.
Questions are: 1. Will I gain very much going from 85 to 105 (not as easy to bend over any more..LOL)
2. Buying the Nikon vs Sigma
Inputs will be greatly appreciated

I have owned a number of macro lenses over the years, including a Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS macro.It is a marvellous lens providing 1:1 at 47cm, which is further away than any of my other macro lenses. The drawback is that it is a big, heavy beast. Nikon produce a 200mm f2.8 macro, but it does not have stabilisation and it also a big old bus. If you do not require a true macro lens, which offers 1:1 or greater, you might consider this: Purchase a good, secondhand Nikkor 300mm PF ED VR + Nikkor 1.4TCIIIE (with or without an auto extension tube) and use it as a substitute for a macro lens. It is beautifully lightweight and produces excellent results when used with a D500 (I used this particular combination for close up shots when I could not get close enough with my Sigma 180mm. Alternatively, you could purchase a secondhand Nikkor 300mm f4 and do the same thing for less money (not sure if the TC14IIIE works with that lens).

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

PixelStan77 wrote:

Serious Macro photographers don't use VR because they are using a tripod.

Sorry but just not true. It depends on the subject of your macro photography. If you are photographing something like stamps or coins then you are correct. But I and many others use macro lenses to photograph living insects, flowers and the like. I definitely use VR on my Nikon D800 with a Nikon 105mm F2.8 lens as I am hand holding the camera while moving in and out for best focus. VR is definitely a help.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

RWR wrote:

Or an electronic flash.

Sorry but as I told PixelStan, many macro photographers definitely use an electronic flash when photographing insects, flowers or similar subjects whether inside or outside. Perhaps you should check out the Macro forum right here on UHH for suggestions and photos of exactly what types of kit macro photographers use for these photos. Electronic flash is definitely a useful if not necessary ingredient to great photos.

Dennis

AGO

I have several Sigma lenses and several Nikon lenses and find them to be comparable. A clerk in my local camera store explained the difference to me: Used daily, Nikon lenses will last 50 years but Sigma's may last only 35 years, but the optics are pretty much equal. Since I'm 68 getting only 35 years out of a lens is fine. For macro work, particularly with flowers and bugs, I use the Sigma 18-250 macro. I'm happy with the results so it meets my needs.

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

First of all Sigma sucks. I have a D500 and just got a Tokina 100 mm f2.8 macro. It is so sharp and easy to use. Great lens and a lot less money than the Nikon.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have several "true" macro lenses from 55 to 180 mm in focal length. Some are AF, others are MF. My go-to lens is an older MF 105mm F2.8, which I use on a Nikon D7100. I have no issues getting in close to subjects and thus seldom use anything over the 105 focal length. An aux flash is indispensable. Not only does it allow one to stop down the lens for much-needed DOF, but the short duration of the flash stops all movement, your own as well as your subjects. The only time I ever get out a tripod is when stacking and then only inside...You won't see much difference in working distance between the 85 and a 105...

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

dennis2146 wrote:

Sorry but just not true. It depends on the subject of your macro photography. If you are photographing something like stamps or coins then you are correct. But I and many others use macro lenses to photograph living insects, flowers and the like. I definitely use VR on my Nikon D800 with a Nikon 105mm F2.8 lens as I am hand holding the camera while moving in and out for best focus. VR is definitely a help.

Dennis

I agree Dennis. Last time I was out my camera was literally on the ground looking at some small flowers. I haven't seen a tripod that can do that.

Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown

I use a Nikon 105 2.8 VR with a Nikon ring light and am so satisfied that I have no desire to change my macro set-up. I am sure the Sigma is also a great lens. What ever you choose I am sure it will produce the images you want. I use my VR unless I am using a tripod. I have been to Butterfly World in Ft Lauderdale and you are required to shoot hand-held. Cool days are the best there for both butterflies and hummingbirds.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Perhaps consider a field monitor for macro if you don't have a fully articulated screen.

Machinedoc Loc: Yorktown Heights, NY

Just to throw my 2 cents in - I have the Sigma 105 f2.8 that I use on the Nikon D7200. I have nothing but good things to say about the that lens - quality build and sharp images. What more can I ask? I am no necessarily a believer in OEM lenses, but would rather compare each on its merits and disadvantages. If you can, try and get to a brick & mortar store to try the lens.

FJS

I cannot comment on the Nikon lens since I live in the Canon world but I have been using a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro on my Canons (currently 7D MKII) for years. The Sigma is as good as or perhaps slightly sharper than my Canon 24-105 F4 "L" lens. If I am doing a dedicated macro session, I usually reach for the Sigma.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

dennis2146 wrote:

Sorry but as I told PixelStan, many macro photographers definitely use an electronic flash when photographing insects, flowers or similar subjects whether inside or outside. Perhaps you should check out the Macro forum right here on UHH for suggestions and photos of exactly what types of kit macro photographers use for these photos. Electronic flash is definitely a useful if not necessary ingredient to great photos.

Dennis

Read what I wrote before making ignorant replies!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Larry J wrote:

I am currently using a Nikon 500D (love it). My question has several parts and I will try to be as concise as possible. Have been using a Nikon 85mm 1:3.5 for Macro shots. I am considering going to either a Nikon
105mm 2.8 or a Sigma 105mm 2.8.
Questions are: 1. Will I gain very much going from 85 to 105 (not as easy to bend over any more..LOL)
2. Buying the Nikon vs Sigma
Inputs will be greatly appreciated

Suspect your D500 and the Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro ($565) would be a match, made in heaven, Larry - also have that lens - on my Sony alpha a77 II … it's a fantastic lens!!!!!